Tuesday, January 14, 2014

CHRISTIE IS A POWERFUL GUY IN A SUIT, SO IF HE'S MERELY BEEN ACCUSED, HE'S SUFFERED ENOUGH

Veteran political analyst Charlie Cook howls in anguish at the notion that a man like Chris Christie might actually suffer the cruel and unusual punishment of facing consequences for his actions in Bridgegate:

Was this action impeachable? Should Christie be prosecuted? With the myriad problems facing New Jersey (and every other state, for that matter), is getting a last pound of flesh from Christie really the best use of state legislators' time and resources? Is the level of crime, whether of the violent or white-collar nature, so low and insignificant that scandals like this are what state or federal prosecutors should be focused on -- as opposed to murder, rape, mayhem, or fraud? Really?

One of the (many) things wrong with politics today is that we attempt to criminalize poor political behavior and, if given half a reason, impeach an elected official, even if he or she is term-limited. I am sure that some creative lawyer can come up with some prosecutable action taken by Christie or his administration, but is that really appropriate here? Isn't this just another manifestation of the scorched-earth nature of American politics today? If you have an opponent on the ropes, don't just knock them out and win the fight; go in for the kill, desecrate the body if you get a chance. Don't hold back! Take the opportunity to get retribution for anything that person may have ever done to wrong you.

Wait -- we're already talking about "getting a last pound of flesh from Christie"? Let's avoid the fat joke here -- if we're going to use this metaphor, did we even get a first pound yet? What consequences has he suffered? He's not being impeached yet. He's not under indictment yet. He hasn't had to resign. He's lost some aides and he's being investigated -- that's it. He's suffered a few days of public embarrassment, but so what? He's a public figure. "If you can't stand the heat" and all that.

Meanwhile, over at The Washington Post, we get this lede from Michael Gerson:

There is something inherently absurd about a political scandal resulting from an event that could also have been caused by a stray deer and a truck filled with watermelons.

Oh, I see. So if I take Gerson's point to its logical conclusion, does that mean we shouldn't prosecute a guy who burns his ex-wife's house down, killing the wife and their three children, because a fire with the same result could also have been caused by lightning?

But that's not Gerson's main point. His main point is that Bridgegate isn't an outrage -- it's a teachable moment!

Christie's news conference was a model of crisis management. He accepted responsibility without admitting culpability. He apologized while maintaining he was a victim. I can't recall a political figure who has done the scandal drill -- mistakes were made, heads will roll -- any better.

In the pre-primary primary, this is actually a qualification. Presidential candidates, who are often human beings, have been known to face draft-record controversies, bimbo eruptions, early DUI revelations, drug-use allegations, questions about discreditable pastoral associations and the like. The successful ones share Christie’s talent for crisis containment.

(Notice that none of the analogies that occur to Gerson involve how past presidential contenders have done their jobs. That's what's significant about this scandal.)

In this case, some of the New Jersey governor's closest advisers have been implicated in an act of nearly irrational vindictiveness and what Christie calls "abject stupidity." It was an abuse of power to punish random people on the roadways who would (if the scheme worked properly) never know the reason. This was the reduction of citizens to ants on a log. It is the political philosophy of a malicious child with a magnifying glass.

It is honestly hard to imagine that such political operatives would have been capable of carrying Christie to the presidency.... Some in Christie's circle of trust were not worthy of trust. Though he asserts, "I am not a bully," he apparently employed some bullies.

This is the reason that the bridge scandal is more than a test of crisis management; it is now a test of whether Christie can build a political team worthy of his 2016 presidential ambitions (assuming, I think safely, that he has them).

... many Republicans are now closely watching Christie's first reaction to serious adversity. Does it make Team Christie more combative and insular? Or is it taken as a painful but helpful lesson -- producing a presidential campaign in which crackpot schemes of political vengeance are unthinkable?

Yes, that's right -- not only isn't there the slightest possibility that Christie himself bears any responsibility for what happened, but the important thing is whether Team Christie can grow, can learn.

Yes, some aides were vindictive, but in the way of "a malicious child with a magnifying glass." Can the Christie-ites put away childish things? Isn't that what we really should be concerned about?

Out here, a stray deer or truckload of watermelons wouldn't close one lane of traffic for more than an hour, let alone three days. This is the disconnect I pointed to the other: we have traffic, we have bridges; Seattle has a sixteen lane freeway perpetually under construction. And as many redstate assholes as the rest of the heartland. New York New Jersey isn't the center of the country and this bullshit doesn't fly with any of the rest of us, left or right. Stray deer, jesus mother-fucking christ, are smarter than that.

Note the white-dogs are circling the wagons around the retired cop that murdered that unarmed father in the florida theater yesterday in the same bullying bullshit fashion.

Christie is the personification of the Retard Party. It's time these animals were removed, period.

Don't forget - Christie's State of the State Address is today at 3 (and it's going to be on CNN because all governors' State of the State Addresses get on CNN, don't they?). I'm sure they all have their "masterful performance stories written already - just have to plug in some quotes.

The past four days are officially the "See? We were tough on Chris Christie that one time" era - just like they totally didn't roll over for Bush Jr. because they asked him about his drunk driving one time (it would be rude, of course, to ask such a question twice if the nice Republican refuses to answer it).

It ends today. They think they owe him eight years in the White House because of what he's had to endure the past four days.

I'm sure that you will find NO smoking gun that directly links Christie to the lane closures. He's too smart to put ANYTHING in writing, like his stupid dumb ass aides did.

However, I think that he is still responsible. Does anyone remember the movie Becket? King Richard comes out with the line "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" And he says it in front of his most loyal knights, fully aware of the fact that they will do the deed for him without being directly ordered.

The church and the society of the time was NOT FOOLED. Too bad in our time some people are stupid enough to believe him when he denies responsibility. If he's not guilty of "suggesting" this, then he's totally incompetent to not know what his aides were doing.